WILFRED MBOMA

versus

MVELASE MINING AND LOGISTICS (PRIVATE) LIMITED

and

JEREMIAH MAKONI

and

TANAKA NHARINGO

and

SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT

and

COMMISIONER GENERAL OF THE ZIMBABWE REPUBLIC POLICE

HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE

MUNANGATI- MANONGWA J

HARARE; 23 February 2026 and 25 February 2026.

Urgent Court Application

T M Mutema, for the applicant

A Mugiya with A. T Nyathi and E.T Moyo for the 1^st, 2nd and 3rd respondents

MUNANGATI- MANONGWA J: This is an application for contempt of court. The applicant has approached this court on an urgent basis, indicating that despite possessing a valid court order dated 1 December 2025 issued by Dembure J in Case Number HCHC 6060/25, which bars the respondents from the mining location SG 10113 and prohibits the extraction or processing of minerals, the first, second, and third respondents have failed to comply with the order. The order was formally served on the respondents by the applicant’s legal practitioners. The applicant asserts that the respondents are actively moving a substantial amount of ore from the mining location on a daily basis, in violation of the court's directive.

The applicant contends that, despite receiving formal service of the order on 10 December 2025 and repeated demands, the respondents have failed, refused, and/or neglected to comply with its terms. Furthermore, the applicant claims that the respondents have established a large-scale excavation site, where they have deployed several pieces of heavy equipment, including hydraulic diggers, backhoes, and makeshift wash plants. Additionally, the applicant asserts that the respondents have installed spiral concentrators and settling ponds at this site. According to the applicant, the respondents are moving an average of 30 truckloads of ore each day. The applicant asserts that he has made several attempts to persuade the first respondent to cease these activities, but these efforts have been unsuccessful.

In response, the first respondent filed a notice of opposition. Through its Director Tanaka Nharingo, the first respondent raised the following points in limine:

Urgency
The respondent contends that the matter lacks urgency, as the applicant had ample time to seek recourse for the alleged contempt of court but failed to do so. The respondent notes that on 10 December 2025, nine days after being granted an order in default against the first respondent, the applicant wrote to the first respondent demanding compliance with the court order. The respondent alleges that from 10 December 2025 until the date of this application, the applicant did not take any action, only to approach the court almost two months later citing urgency. The respondent questions why the applicant did not explain the delay in filing the application, given that the allegations regarding resource extraction had been communicated in the letter dated 10 December.

Dishonesty
The respondent claims that the applicant misled the court by presenting falsehoods and failing to disclose relevant facts. It asserts that it is inaccurate to state that the first respondent is mining on the applicant’s claim; it is actually another company, Red Ant Mining (Private) Limited, that is conducting the mining activities. The respondent contends that the applicant entered into a joint venture agreement with Red Ant Mining (Private) Limited, which is conducting mining activities in accordance with that agreement.

Misjoinder
The respondent argues that the second and third respondents were never personally served with the application for contempt of court. A review of the draft order sought by the applicant indicates the potential for effective imprisonment in the event of non-compliance. The respondent asserts that personal service is required in contempt of court proceedings due to their impact on individual liberty. Furthermore, the first respondent argues that the second and third respondents are not directors of the first respondent. For a